myFlohmarkt Flea Market Catalog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a concrete behavioral trait beyond them: unknown or non-public UUIDs return not_found. It also clarifies the scope to public details of German flea markets, which is useful context for an agent selecting the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the valuable fields, gives a direct usage trigger, and ends with the error behavior. No redundant or tautological wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value details are already covered structurally. The description covers input provenance, selection criteria, scope limitation to public German markets, and error semantics. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single id parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining the ID comes from the id field of search_events or recently_updated_events and what happens for unknown/non-public UUIDs. This is meaning beyond the schema's UUID format and pattern.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: getting the full public details of one German flea market by UUID, and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by referencing the id field of search_events or recently_updated_events, making its scope immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use the tool: when a search hit is not enough to answer questions about price, address, or what is sold. It names the sibling tools that supply the ID and implies alternatives by distinguishing full details from search hits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is well covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data source is the public catalogue, ordering is newest change first, and both added and updated items are included. It does not describe pagination or time-window semantics, but the output schema covers the return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence defines scope and ordering, and the second gives usage guidance with an alternative. Every phrase earns its place, and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter list tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description covers purpose, data scope, ordering, and sibling differentiation. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation, and the `limit` parameter is fully constrained by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter `limit` has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. While the parameter name and schema constraints (default 10, min 1, max 50) make its purpose reasonably inferable, the description fails to add any semantic value or compensate for the absent schema descriptions, which is required for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List'), a well-defined resource ('German flea markets in the public my-flohmarkt.de catalogue'), and a clear ordering ('newest change first'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_events by noting that search_events is for city, PLZ, date range, or area queries, leaving no ambiguity about this tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('to see what is new without a search query') and when to use the alternative ('use search_events when you know the city, PLZ, date range or area'). This provides direct decision guidance between siblings, though get_event is not mentioned—an acceptable omission since get_event is for retrieving a single known event.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the public catalogue source, the 50-result maximum, and the dataAsOf timestamp. It doesn't discuss errors or pagination, but those are secondary given the annotations and output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: one scoping sentence, one filter sentence, one constraint sentence, and one result-shape sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place without filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the data source, all filter modes, the radius dependency constraint, the maximum result count, and the shape of each hit. With an output schema present and annotations providing the read-only/idempotent safety profile, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-meaning burden. It clarifies that city accepts a name or PLZ, query is free text, dateFrom/dateTo form a date range, and radius requires lat, lng, and radiusKm together with a 100 km max. The limit parameter isn't explicitly explained, but the 50-result cap plus the schema's min/max/default make it recoverable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and object: search German flea markets from the public my-flohmarkt.de catalogue, and even enumerates the market type synonyms. The filter list and output description make it distinct from sibling tools get_event and recently_updated_events even though those aren't named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: free-text search, city/PLZ search, date-range search, or radius search. It also explicitly states that radius searches require lat, lng, and radiusKm together, which is key operational guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, e.g., 'for a known event, use get_event.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.